Post New

We have a choice between 2 candidates.

Trump, a greedy sociopath who would throw his mother under a bus for a dollar, is only interested in grifting his sycophant followers with chintzy merchandise, and who is an easy mark that can be bought by our enemies for the bribe of staying in an overpriced hotel room or an overpriced club membership that gives them access to our nation’s stolen top secrets.

Or Harris, a tough prosecutor who had the guts to fight big banks and get billions of dollars for American homeowners. The headline:

”Kamala Harris played hardball with banks. It meant billions for homeowners.”

A gift article before my WaPo subscription expires next week.

https://wapo.st/4hmbQjM

Trump, a greedy sociopath who would throw his mother under a bus for a dollar, is only interested in grifting his sycophant followers with chintzy merchandise, and who is an easy mark that can be bought by our enemies for the bribe of staying in an overpriced hotel room or an overpriced club membership that gives them access to our nation’s stolen top secrets.

Or Harris, a tough prosecutor who had the guts to fight big banks and get billions of dollars for American homeowners. The headline:


Astonishing that anyone could have trouble deciding. Trump is so clearly UNFIT in every way imaginable.

Astonishing that anyone could have trouble deciding. Trump is so clearly UNFIT in every way imaginable.

Under this framing, it's easy to see why Trump supporters love him.

Trump is going to fight the liberals and progressives. He's not fighting for his voters, but he'll fight against their opponents all the same. He hates the right people, his enemies are Republicans' enemies, and if there's one thing that Trump likes to do, it's fight people he thinks are against him.

So while Trump will fight against the people his base thinks should be fought, Harris is on the wrong side. She's fighting for the "bad guys," in their estimation. She's fighting for the people who want to make the country worse, fighting for the people who have terrible plans for the future.

I think Trump voters are a lot more confident that Trump will fight against their opponents than Harris voters are confident that Harris will fight against their opponents. Trump's making no quarter with the liberal left, but Harris is drawing some unhappy thoughts from progressives with her tough on crime, tough on the border, Liz Cheney buddy road show....

Both are Goldman Sachs candidates.

Both are Big Pharma Candidates.

Both are Big Oil candidates.

Both are Big Pharama candidates.

Both are Big HMO candidates.


However, one is more liked by Goldman Sachs and Big Defense.

One is more liked by NeoCons and Dick Cheney.

And one turned her back on parts of her constituency and embraced oil and fracking.

Who will fight?

The "exploding" population in Paris - is fighting :) Ditto Hamburg too.

The angry ostracized populations in America - as you've seen - are fighting.

Harris or Trump? Neither will fight for us. They'll send us to fight - and Harris will do it more.

For you, victory is defined as 'Whew! The Corporate NeoCon Darling had double the money, much more organization and anyone from Obama to Taylor Swift....and we won us a 52% victory!"

Reach for them stars.

Astonishing that anyone could have trouble deciding. Trump is so clearly UNFIT in every way imaginable.

We have to come to grips with the fact that Trump may, or rather is somewhat likely to, win. All that we fear is likely to pass, will pass. I'm not sure what an individual voter can do. Somehow we have to hold and grip onto what is left us, and after Trump passes, see if we can rebuild. But populism will still be with us, so we have to appeal to people who become disenchanted with Trump and help them see there is a better way.

We need to get together with Europe and find legal ways to tamp down on the number of refugees coming into our country via the Geneva agreement. We seem to lose track of those that fly in with visas, but that's usually coupled with education - so it has a vague plus to it. We had a good beginning in the bill Trump killed (that Dope says he didn't).

We need to keep the economy going as well as it has been, improve our health care, make preemptive laws for foreign interference in our elections, see if we can draw lines on disinformation, protect our elections better, and reduce crime and overdoses. In getting people into houses, let's study the effect on rents and housing and reduce the probability of any type of collusion, intended or otherwise, on these prices. We can build more houses, but we need to do it intelligently.

We need to do all of this simultaneously.

Trump's making no quarter with the liberal left, but Harris is drawing some unhappy thoughts from progressives with her tough on crime, tough on the border, Liz Cheney buddy road show....

Democrats have never taken a “making no quarter” approach with groups of people like Trump has. Successful Democrat candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have won with a more inclusive message. They take “making no quarter” positions with certain issues, such as abortion.

I consider myself a progressive and many of my friends are also progressives. I don’t know anyone that would support a candidate who was weak on crime or weak on border security. Those are MAGA talking points, not progressive positions. I want someone tough on crime. I want secure borders. What differentiates progressives from MAGA is the manner of achieving these goals. Separating babies from mothers, making women criminals for having an abortion, and mass deportations is not being tough. It’s intentionally cruel.

If progressives are having “unhappy thoughts” about supporting Harris, they seem to be mostly keeping them under wraps. They understand the danger to democracy that Trump represents.

I can’t stand Dick Cheney and I disagree with Liz Cheney on the vast majority of issues, but I admire their guts to stand up to a dictator want-to-be like Trump. This progressive is not the least bit bothered by their endorsement of Harris. It might even give a few Republicans the guts to do the same thing or maybe not vote the top of the ticket.

This appears to be a razor tight contest according to the polls. The polls understated Trump’s support in 2016 and 2020. However, since overturning Roe vs Wade, polls have understated Democrat support. Add to that that there’s been some unusual poll movements (more black men supporting Trump, some Republicans supporting Harris, etc). We won’t know the accuracy of the polls until after the final poll, the election.

This is a tough environment. I think Harris is running one hell of a campaign.

If progressives are having “unhappy thoughts” about supporting Harris, they seem to be mostly keeping them under wraps. They understand the danger to democracy that Trump represents.

Brian Ramirez is voting for Vice President Harris — even canvassing for her. But he’s not loving what she’s been saying as she tries to persuade moderate Republicans and independent voters in the final days of the campaign.

Harris has been courting voters outside the traditional Democratic coalition to try to win tight races in swing states by appealing to their concerns about former President Donald Trump.

But the strategy has dampened enthusiasm among some progressives, who feel she’s tacked too far right.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/27/nx-s1-5085735/kamal...

This is a tough environment. I think Harris is running one hell of a campaign.

I agree. I just don't entirely know why posters here affect to not understand why voters support him - for example, like in this thread suggesting that Trump voters should believe that Harris is going to fight for them, rather than Trump. They don't believe that, and they shouldn't believe that - because they want their President to fight against the Democratic positions that Harris would be fighting for.

I just don't entirely know why posters here affect to not understand why voters support him

It’s a very old reason - one that I didn’t fully grasp until you mentioned it here.

Is an inability to empathsize with others, to put yourself in their shoes. We’re all guilty of that from time to time - some are guilty of it more often than others, and taken to an extreme it is considered a mental illness.

Trump and his supporters are not really FOR much of anything. Their focus is on what they are AGAINST. They are against immigration. They are against abortion. They are against criminals. They are against higher education. They are against certain kinds of government spending. Sure, there are some things that they are FOR, but they’re generally defined by what they are against.

On the other hand, most democrats are defined by what they are FOR. They are for women’s rights. They are for inclusivity. They are for government spending on social services.

If a democrat is too focused on what people stand FOR, they can lose track of the fact that republicans are focused on being AGAINST issues.

To over-simplify into a cliche, democrats see the friend of my friend is also a friend. For republicans, the enemy of my enemy is a friend.

So rank and file republicans support Trump not because they like him, but because he hates the things they hate.

—Peter

Trump is going to fight the liberals and progressives. He's not fighting for his voters, but he'll fight against their opponents all the same. He hates the right people, his enemies are Republicans' enemies, and if there's one thing that Trump likes to do, it's fight people he thinks are against him.

Wow. I consider Russia's government as our enemy (I would like to see it overthrown). I do not think of other Americans as enemies. Merriam-Webster defines enemy as "one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent". Why would I wish harm to a fellow citizen? This is Trump's corrosive effect. Trump's words lead others to physical attacks on postal carriers and election workers. Trump glorifies and encourages violence, and divides the country for his short-term gain. We have much in common, might have different priorities, but basically want many of the same things, and are stronger when we all work together. Abraham Lincoln saw this after the Civil War, and Truman after WWII with the Marshall Plan. Wartime enemies became friends with long lasting benefits for everyone. Civil discussion can find the common ground with win-win deals. Trump's methods of division only lead to inaction and chaos. The border bill is an example.

=== quotes and links ===
"A house divided against itself, cannot stand." Abraham Lincoln, 1858

‘Lincoln’ Seeks to Set the Facts Straight, April 3, 1996
""When an old woman rebuked him for his conciliatory attitude toward the South, which she felt should be “destroyed” after the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln replied, “Madam, do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” Among the host of Lincoln anecdotes, this one perhaps best illustrates Lincoln’s resonant humanity."
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-03...

‘The enemy from within’: Trump calls Democrats more dangerous than U.S. foreign adversaries, Oct. 13, 2024
"During a pretaped interview on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," Trump was asked by host Maria Bartiromo about how he would handle bureaucrats who might seek to undermine him in a potential second term. "I always say, we have two enemies," Trump said, adding: "We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries." Trump added that a "smart president" could handle outside adversaries "pretty easily," but "the thing that's tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff." "I call him the enemy from within," he added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/-en...

The RWPM has portrayed democrats, the media, and immigrants** as "the enemy". They've been pounding on that for years. Probably 30% buy it (the convict's base).

There is some spin on the democrat's part, but it isn't a general thing. The convict is an enemy to democracy. Plus his sycophants. Mostly the left sees the extreme right (like the Vance and Greene and a few others) as "nuts" (or "weird"). Others like Liz Cheney or Kinzinger they just don't agree with, but aren't "crazy".

If there's a civil war, the Republicans will be the ones who start it. Which is kinda scary, because they also own most of the guns in this country.

In my youth, at one point I thought 'let's line up all 535 members of Congress, shoot them, and then elect a new bunch and say "you better to better'". It was mostly hyperbole. But modern Republicans might actually do it (except for the electing new ones...I think they want to go straight to appointing all the radical right folks without bothering with voting).

Wartime enemies became friends with long lasting benefits for everyone.

Somebody tell Bibi. He’s minting terrorists faster than Butterball moves turkeys in November.

Somebody tell Bibi. He’s minting terrorists faster than Butterball moves turkeys in November.

Yup. He should have begged forgiveness of Hamas and let them have their way with even more women and kids.

Fighting back just makes them angrier.

Somebody tell Bibi. He’s minting terrorists faster than Butterball moves turkeys in November.

Yup. He should have begged forgiveness of Hamas and let them have their way with even more women and kids.
*****

Yet, "Nazi on the parade! Nazi joined the parade!"

In other news, that means Kamala Harris and Zelensky must be minting Russian terrorists. But "gasp! We don't like Putin! Take away Big Macs from Russians!" Oh, ok, what about the Muslims being killed by China? "China is a 401K darling! We love us cheap labor and XI is a fine Central Planner Authoritarian. Keep trading with them"

In other news, that means Kamala Harris and Zelensky must be minting Russian terrorists. But "gasp! We don't like Putin! Take away Big Macs from Russians!" Oh, ok, what about the Muslims being killed by China? "China is a 401K darling! We love us cheap labor and XI is a fine Central Planner Authoritarian. Keep trading with them"

A lot of folks on here replaced thinking with sound bites a looooooong time ago...

Yup. He should have begged forgiveness of Hamas and let them have their way with even more women and kids.

Funny how you see the answers to most questions as being either the ridiculous extreme answer that you hold, or the equally extreme and ridiculous answer that is held by almost no one.

Quick…. Show us anothe video of a crazy lady ringing a doorbell.

Funny how you see the answers to most questions as being either the ridiculous extreme answer that you hold, or the equally extreme and ridiculous answer that is held by almost no one.

Quick…. Show us anothe video of a crazy lady ringing a doorbell.

And it's funny how you people are unable to discuss any rational policy.

All you have are ... trite soundbites about manufacturing more terrorists. What you fail to understand is lots of things manufacture more terrorists. Like, say, da Joos having their own place to live. Or da Joos being able to live at all. So since you'd rather cluck your tongue than solve a problem, here you go.

I'll make it easy for you and give you the answer and you can wring your hands over it:

*The Israelis are through with putting up with random rockets landing on their heads, people coming over the walls to murder and from hearing about it from an international community that mostly just wants them to fail. So they're doing something.
*They're also done with pretending that it's totally okay for a country to sit back and fund all this with no consequences.

So they're doing something.

The politics of people who say "bbbut they're manufacturing terrorists" are those of the bullied kid hoping that the bully picks on them last. That's not how you deal with bullies.

Mind you in Sweden and France.....

I'm with Sheeple and the Left.

It's nothing I would do - but hey, love is love - I guess.

And it's funny how you people are unable to discuss any rational policy.

You’re the one posting a video of a crazy lady ringing a doorbell.

Right now, it’s the reality of a crazy man trying to burn down the country that has taken center stage, and that fact has united folks from Liz Cheney to Bernie Sanders in order to stop him at the ballot box.

There will be time enough to worry about the color of the carpet in the living room. Right now the house is on fire.

You’re the one posting a video of a crazy lady ringing a doorbell.

I'm showing you what your fellow Tolerant And All Around Nice People are doing. Not my fault if you interpret as a mirror to look at.

Right now, it’s the reality of a crazy man trying to burn down the country

The only cray-cray the Normals see is the chick on the Ring doorbell.

Right now the house is on fire.

Only in your head.

The politics of people who say "bbbut they're manufacturing terrorists" are those of the bullied kid hoping that the bully picks on them last. That's not how you deal with bullies.

There are plenty of rational arguments on both sides, which is why it's such an intractable problem. There are plenty of irrational arguments on both sides, too, though. Which is why it can be so comforting to just imagine that the people who disagree with you are only doing so based on the irrational argument, rather than a rational one.

The rational argument against Israel's current policy is to draw parallels to nationalist disputes like The Troubles in Northern Ireland, which were ended not by treating the opposing side as a "bully," but reaching an accord. Or by looking at the Partition of India, which resulted in a lot of trauma and loss and death on both sides, but resulted in an unsteady but enduring level of peace between the two national peoples.

Israel has "punched the bully" over and over and over again....but the "bully" hasn't given up. It hasn't worked. It might never work. It may be that the nationalist forces that are generating opposition to Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza isn't analogous to a bully - that they're not like a person that picks on other kids, but will stop doing it if people stand up to them. They may instead by more like the nationalist impulses of a people that will not stop fighting until they achieve autonomy, even if it takes centuries, and that the only way to end the conflict is to either reach an accord or exterminate them. The latter is an unacceptable outcome, both for the Palestinians and Israel. Therefore the former is the only possible end result.

Advocating for an accord is therefore not the "bullied kid hoping the bully picks on them last," but an observer realizing that the Palestinians aren't a schoolyard bully that can be dealt with by schoolyard bully tactics. If you stand up to this "bully," they won't stop bullying. You can get into a fistfight with them - you might even win that fistfight - but they'll be back tomorrow, with friends. And you can get into another fistfight with them again....and they'll be back the next day. You will never stop fighting - the bully will never back down. And since you can't pull out a gun and kill the schoolyard bully and all their friends, you have to find another way.

Which is very frustrating - but it's reality. Fighting back against a "bully" only works if doing so resolves the problem, if the person you're fighting is in fact like a schoolyard bully. If not, then it won't work.

The rational argument against Israel's current policy is to draw parallels to nationalist disputes like The Troubles in Northern Ireland, which were ended not by treating the opposing side as a "bully," but reaching an accord. Or by looking at the Partition of India, which resulted in a lot of trauma and loss and death on both sides, but resulted in an unsteady but enduring level of peace between the two national peoples.

Did the Catholics deny the Protestants the right to exist? How about in India?
It's not remotely the same thing, as you know quite well.

Israel has "punched the bully" over and over and over again....but the "bully" hasn't given up. It hasn't worked. It might never work.

I'd say Israel has 'shoved' some of the bullies. Maybe slapped a couple, but it's never hauled off and curb-stomped any of them. Hamas is on the receiving end of a curb-stomping at the moment and Hezbollah is gearing up to get theirs. As we write these posts Hezbollah leaders can't talk to their foot soldiers (due to the fear of having your 'nads blown off by a rogue beeper or walkie) and as a result there's choas in their ranks. Hez fighters are bailing out of Lebanon per some reports rather than sit there and die.

Iran is the real bully behind the scenes. To carry on our analogy the most the Israelis have done is fill their locker full of sand (STUXNET in the nuclear power plant) or put itching powder in Iran's jock strap (stealing all their nuclear documents). But that hasn't worked. After Iran's recent attacks on Israel proper in defense of their terror proxies the Israelis had to respond.

The response they've chosen is to blind Iran's air defenses.

Advocating for an accord is therefore not the "bullied kid hoping the bully picks on them last," but an observer realizing that the Palestinians aren't a schoolyard bully that can be dealt with by schoolyard bully tactics. If you stand up to this "bully," they won't stop bullying. You can get into a fistfight with them - you might even win that fistfight - but they'll be back tomorrow, with friends.

That may be how YOU see it but to those who merely state things like "we're manufacturing more terrorists" I don't believe they posses the ability to process nuance.


At any rate. You're very well aware that the fastest way this ends is if the Iranians...just stop. Where are the calls for them to stop funding terror?

Which is very frustrating - but it's reality. Fighting back against a "bully" only works if doing so resolves the problem, if the person you're fighting is in fact like a schoolyard bully. If not, then it won't work.

When the bully understands that the only reward he gets for trying to steal your lunch money is a beating coupled with some humiliation, he'll stop. I do agree with you that the analogy is flawed; the Iranians/fanatic Arabs don't believe the Israelis have a right to live where they live and would just as soon see them dead. I don't know how you handle that kind of death cult stuff.

Did the Catholics deny the Protestants the right to exist? How about in India?
It's not remotely the same thing, as you know quite well.

I'm not saying that part is the same thing. "Brits out of Ireland" means that the Brits don't get to be in Ireland, but they still have their own country. So it hits very differently than "Jews out of Israel." Same with the partition of India.

But "we're never going to stop fighting until we get our own country" is something that they all have in common. And there are lots of places where the fighting didn't stop until independence was achieved.

You're very well aware that the fastest way this ends is if the Iranians...just stop. Where are the calls for them to stop funding terror?

All over the place. It's not like the Saudis haven't called on them to stop funding the Houthis, for example.

But "this" doesn't end if the Iranians....just stop. It doesn't - because you still have millions of nationalist-minded Palestinians who are going to keep fighting until they get a country. So either Israel can fight forever, or they can cut a deal. It's not irrational for people to argue that fighting forever isn't a viable option.

I do agree with you that the analogy is flawed; the Iranians/fanatic Arabs don't believe the Israelis have a right to live where they live and would just as soon see them dead. I don't know how you handle that kind of death cult stuff.

The death cult stuff you can't handle with a deal. But getting rid of the death cult stuff wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is the disconnect between Palestinian national aspirations and the reality on the ground. There are millions of Palestinians who aren't part of a death cult but who still want their own nation, and many of them are willing to fight not because they want to abolish Israel, but rather because they want autonomy and independence for their people.

That's why this is so complicated - so much more complicated than your dismissals of the opposing arguments. There are two goals being pursued, and while they are intertwined they are also distinct: the abolition of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian national state. There are "death cult" people who want both, and the former is not a legitimate goal; but because the latter is a legitimate goal, people are not necessarily going to stop fighting for it even if you get rid of the death cult part.

All over the place. It's not like the Saudis haven't called on them to stop funding the Houthis, for example.

Really? There's a major party candidate in the race who is saying no such thing. She's been all over trying to play both sides of the issue.

Hamas put Israel in a position where it had NO CHOICE but to issue the curb-stomping. The Iranians aren't idiots so they should have understood that and accepted the outcome.

The death cult stuff you can't handle with a deal. But getting rid of the death cult stuff wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is the disconnect between Palestinian national aspirations and the reality on the ground. There are millions of Palestinians who aren't part of a death cult but who still want their own nation, and many of them are willing to fight not because they want to abolish Israel, but rather because they want autonomy and independence for their people.

I'm not so sure, especially in Gaza. These people teach their kids to hate Jews just like they teach them to breathe. If I'm Israel, I'm game planning what a proto-state of "Gaza" would look like and am having serious discussions with the Egyptians, Saudis and Jordanians about

a) who runs it
b) who's *not* allowed to run it
c) consequences for bad beahvior
d) who funds it
e) consequences for misallocated funds

That's why this is so complicated - so much more complicated than your dismissals of the opposing arguments.

Sound bites aren't arguments. I will grant you that the intellectual level of some of the lefties here maxes out at the sound bite level, so to your point perhaps I should take that into account.

There's a major party candidate in the race who is saying no such thing. She's been all over trying to play both sides of the issue.

You honestly believe that Kamala Harris doesn't want Iran to stop funding terrorist organizations?

Hamas put Israel in a position where it had NO CHOICE but to issue the curb-stomping. The Iranians aren't idiots so they should have understood that and accepted the outcome.

I agree, and I think that even many of the folks arguing in favor of a cease-fire would agree that some curb-stomping was required. Israel had to respond. The argument is that at some point, the continued curb-stomping becomes counter-productive.

As for the Iranians....they kind of did accept that outcome. Hamas was expecting Hezbollah to storm over the border and invade as well, and they didn't do that. They fired missiles, and then stopped. Hezbollah is Iran's lapdog. That's as close as you can get to Iran saying to Hamas, shut up and take your curb-stomping. It wasn't until the curb-stomping kept going and going and going and going, affecting more and more non-Hamas folks, that Iran actually did something directly.

I'm not so sure, especially in Gaza. These people teach their kids to hate Jews just like they teach them to breathe. If I'm Israel, I'm game planning what a proto-state of "Gaza" would look like and am having serious discussions with the Egyptians, Saudis and Jordanians about

But they're not in those discussions. That's the problem. While Iran stopping their support of the "Axis of Resistance" is a necessary condition to a peaceful end of the conflict, so too is Israel taking steps along the lines you describe above. Neither is a sufficient condition, but both are necessary. And Israel isn't doing that. There's an essential part of Netanyahu's coalition that will not accept a Palestinian state ever under any conditions. They believe that they can fight and fight and fight until they "kill the bully," to strain your analogy. You and I both know that in the real world, it's not a viable option to kill the schoolyard bully - if you can't get them to back down with measures short of murder, you're still worse off if you murder them. But that faction of Israeli politics doesn't believe that's the case.

Look, I'm sympathetic to the position you're espousing. I've said before that I don't necessarily buy the argument that using force to destroy a terrorist organization is a fruitless endeavor due to creating more terrorists. There is something to be gained even by replacing an experienced and effective terrorist organization with an inexperienced group of would-be terrorists with no experience, training, resources, or organization. But I don't discount the arguments being made on the other side as irrational, just because there also exist irrational people that make bad (but different) arguments.

BTW. It seems there are a couple of adults left in the living, breathing train wreck that is the democrat party:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/pro-harr...
The leading super political action committee supporting Vice President Kamala Harris is raising concerns that focusing too narrowly on Donald Trump’s character and warnings that he is a fascist is a mistake in the closing stretch of the campaign.

You don't say? Tell me more.

In an email circulated to Democrats about what messages have been most effective in its internal testing, Future Forward, the leading pro-Harris super PAC, said focusing on Trump’s character and the fascist label were less persuasive than other messages.
“Attacking Trump’s Fascism Is Not That Persuasive,” read one line in bold type in the email, which is known as Doppler and sent on a regular basis. “‘Trump Is Exhausted’ Isn’t Working,” read another.

So there *are* a couple of brain cells left on the [d] side of the aisle.
It's too late, though. The media, after having run with this (and are continuing to) have pretty much exhausted all their street cred. Time for all the legacy outfits to slowly fade away...

Peter: "So rank and file republicans support Trump not because they like him, but because he hates the things they hate."

Quibble. Trump panders. He pretends to hate the things 'they' hate. He's an expert on playing a role, pandering to a crowd; a student of WWE's Vince McMahon and the kayfabe. But in real life, he's always been insulated from 'they'.

The closest he's been to the reality of 'they' was getting his ear knicked by a disgruntled republican nut.

I tend to think of it (lately) as Native American reservations. Fortunately, ours are mostly peaceful, and utilize protest and the political process. In Israel, they (whichever side you choose) cannot tolerate the "theft" of the land, and engage in terrorist/guerilla activities. Depending on the moment in history you choose, either side could be the "out" side.

Within my lifetime I have heard calls for a separate black homeland (and a Muslim homeland) within the US. Which is somewhat hysterical given that this is the homeland of the Native Americans, so there can be neither a black nor Muslim "homeland" because there never was (not on this continent).

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict doesn't seem to have a political process, and neither side wants to give up one square centimeter. Maybe someday someone will, but I'd be surprised. At this point I'm expecting Israel to pretty much wipe out the Palestinians. Or so marginalize them that they scatter like the Roma. A forced diaspora.

Advocating for an accord is therefore not the "bullied kid hoping the bully picks on them last," but an observer realizing that the Palestinians aren't a schoolyard bully that can be dealt with by schoolyard bully tactics.

I agree. If you want to use the "schoolyard bully" analogy (which isn't the best fit), Israel has been the one acting more like the bully recently. They keep taking stuff from the Palestinians and the Palestinians fight back.

As a slightly disinterested observer who is definitely on the outside, there are times when it feels like an adult needs to step in between these two, send them into their rooms for a while to think about it, then drag them out after a bit of cooling off and force them to start talking about their problems instead of fighting.

Getting out of the analogies, I want to see the fighting stop. The only practical way for that to happen quickly is for someone stronger to step in and make them stop. But that's going to put someone's military in the way of some significant harm. The Israelis are quite well armed and may not want to stop fighting. That leaves negotiations, which are very hard to do when both sides would prefer to fight than negotiate.

The best I can hope for from a US policy standpoint is to stop supplying either side with arms. All anyone gets is humanitarian aid: food, water, medical supplies. But good luck with that - it's tantamount to taking profits away from the military industry.

--Peter

Quibble. Trump panders. He pretends to hate the things 'they' hate.

I can mostly accept that quibble. I think he's genuinely a racist and misogynist. He's just too consistent with those. The pandering there is to pretend NOT to be to get votes from women and blacks. Most other "hates" have some decent chance of being pandering rather than genuine hatred.

--Peter

I'd say Israel has 'shoved' some of the bullies. Maybe slapped a couple, but it's never hauled off and curb-stomped any of them.

I'd say Israel has 'shoved' some of the bullies. Maybe slapped a couple, but it's never hauled off and curb-stomped any of them.

Forty thousand + “shoved” Gazan men, but mostly women and children are curious (or would have been curious had they lived…. about your definition of “shoved”.

There are plenty of rational arguments on both sides, which is why it's such an intractable problem.

I agree, it's an intractable problem. There's no easy solution to it, if there was - it would've been solved prior to now. Nothing seems to work and every time we think it's close, it doesn't happen and seems to get further away. I remember when it seemed close to a peace with the Oslo Accords, and then things shifted and Netanyahu was conveying that there really was a movement that wanted to end Israel and Israelis. It seems the rest of the Middle East wants to move on, get to a peace, but Iran has the ability, staying power, and soon may become a nuclear power. It's unsolvable to me at the moment, we need a major shift and it isn't on the horizon as far as I can see.

Quibble. Trump panders. He pretends to hate the things 'they' hate. He's an expert on playing a role, pandering to a crowd; a student of WWE's Vince McMahon and the kayfabe. But in real life, he's always been insulated from 'they'.

I remind myself that he had lost interest in "the wall" until Anne Coulter lit a fire under his butt and suddenly build that wall was #1.

And you can get into another fistfight with them again....and they'll be back the next day.

---------------

OTOH, if you break the bully's legs and arms in today's fight, he may be coming back for another fight but only after a long period of convalescence. Biden's policy of proportionate response is what allowed the bully to come back for daily fights.

Biden's policy of proportionate response is what allowed the bully to come back for daily fights.

I tend to agree with you on this... to a certain degree.

It's not working well for Biden in the Middle East.

And it's not working well in Ukraine.

But it's working better than a foreign policy that looks like:

1. Threaten North Korea with "fire and fury".
2. Have a summit with Kim Jong Un and then follow up with "love letters"
3. Cancel joint South Korean and US military exercises.
4. Come away from this tempestuous affair with absolutely nothing except aching nether parts and the unfulfilled promise that Kim Jong Un will love you in the morning.
5. Claim victory.

Forty thousand + “shoved” Gazan men, but mostly women and children are curious (or would have been curious had they lived…. about your definition of “shoved”.

Yeah, those Hamas-sourced numbers are totally believable.

And you left off why that had to happen in the first place.

But it's working better than a foreign policy that looks like:

It also works better than a foreign policy that looks like…..

1. Send your son-in-law who totally lacks diplomatic experience to the Middle East in order to broker a peace agreement, to solve the”Palestinian problem”

Involve everyone in the Middle East to be party to the agreement EXCEPT THE PALESTINIANS.

2 Declare an agreement that brings peace in our time! Nothing like it in the world has ever been seen before.

3. Sovereign wealth fund of House of Saud “invests” almot 3 billion dollArs in Jared Kushner’s investment fund. Said investment fund has yet to pay a penny in return for $3b in Saudi money.

4. The above insulting arrangement is capitalized by Hamas, leading directly to their attack one year ago and Israel’s military response, launching the Middle East into a war with more casualties than any conflict in Israel’s history

5. Jared Kushner sees more economic opportunity in the leveling of Gaza. “This is creating some real prime seaside property.”

To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.
Tacitus

Involve everyone in the Middle East to be party to the agreement EXCEPT THE PALESTINIANS.


We got the Abraham Accords. Seems like it worked out pretty well.

You might ask yourself when the Palestinians are going to act like a people who deserve a state.

We got the Abraham Accords. Seems like it worked out pretty well.

The US Government also got a treaty with the Lakota Sioux at Fort Larami, signed by Lakota “chiefs” who were not authorized by the Lakota to speak for all bands. Then the calvary enforced the terms of the treaty on all Lakota, most of whom said “Those fort Indians don’t speak for us”

George Armstrong Custer died for their sins.

Rule number 1 of any treaty:
The accepted representAtives of all parties must sign off on the terms of a treaty, unless your name is Douglas MacArthur and you’ve brought the legal representatives of the Japanese government to the deck of the USS Missouri to sign the terms of an unconditional surrender. But even then, MacArthur observed protocol by ensuring all legal representatives of the parties were ther.

The Abraham Accords was a meaningless piece of paper, good only for papering over the absence of the very people who were “the problem”.

And its worthlessness became glaringly evident three years later on October 7th, when Hamas impressed the message in an orgy of violence, “Hey, remember us?”

Intractable, maddening, the rocky shore upon which many a ship of diplomacy has foundered…… the Palestinian “problem” is the central problem, and no solution will be found by ignoring them.

Now, Bibi doesn't seem to be ignoring them. He seems to be liquidating them, but that sort of final solution, in addition to being monstrously ironic, is untenable. Bibi is losing friends and shedding allies faster than my dog can shake off the water from her bath.

He’s either going to have to kill them all or find a way to sit down at a table with them, and I don’t believe that choosing door#1 is the path to peace and prosperity for the people of Israel.

Of course, as long as this drags out, Bibi stays out of jail.

So there’s that…

You might ask yourself when the Palestinians are going to act like a people who deserve a state.

Yeah...I'm sure they were saying similar things about Jews back in 1940 when this photo was taken (of a future prime minister).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#/medi...

Both sides are aggrieved because the both have claim to the land going back centuries. But then albaby gave us a history lesson several weeks ago about land claims, and shifting empires.

Yet Kamala Harris helps fund the Israeli War Machine.

Kamalanomics.

KamalaGenocider.


Hey, it all starts and ends with her......


Let me know if that changes.

Yeah, those Hamas-sourced numbers are totally believable.

As of 22 October 2024, over 44,000 people (42,718 Palestinian[1] and 1,706 Israeli)[19] have been reported as killed in the Israel–Hamas war, including 131-143 journalists and media workers (123-130 Palestinian, 2-4 Israeli, 6-8 Lebanese and 1 Syrian) according to Committee to Protect Journalists and International Federation of Journalists.[20][21], 120 academics[22] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, including 179 employees of UNRWA.[23]

Rule number 1 of any treaty:
The accepted representAtives of all parties must sign off on the terms of a treaty, unless your name is Douglas MacArthur and you’ve brought the legal representatives of the Japanese government to the deck of the USS Missouri to sign the terms of an unconditional surrender. But even then, MacArthur observed protocol by ensuring all legal representatives of the parties were ther.

The AA's were a trilateral deal between Israel, UAE and Bahrain.
The Palestinians were left out because they weren't serious. About anything.

The Abraham Accords was a meaningless piece of paper, good only for papering over the absence of the very people who were “the problem”.

Yeah, not so much. Neither of those two countries had ever recognized Israel's sovereignty before. You may call that "useless" but in diplo circles and in international relations that's a massive deal, opening the door to trade agreements and other functions.

And its worthlessness became glaringly evident three years later on October 7th, when Hamas impressed the message in an orgy of violence, “Hey, remember us?”

Again, not so much. Nobody told Hamas to r@pe and murder their way across southern Israel and take captives - many of whom are still not accounted for.

The Gazans have no one to blame but themselves.

Both sides are aggrieved because the both have claim to the land going back centuries. But then albaby gave us a history lesson several weeks ago about land claims, and shifting empires.

There's no "Both sides" here.

There's no "Both sides" here.

Sure there is. The Israeli side and the Palestinian side. Not the Hamas side - they're an evil death cult. But there's millions and millions of Palestinians that have legitimate desires for autonomy and self-determination.

Sure there is. The Israeli side and the Palestinian side. Not the Hamas side - they're an evil death cult. But there's millions and millions of Palestinians that have legitimate desires for autonomy and self-determination.

The problem with that is the fact that Hamas is the duly elected government in Gaza and has received support from the UN and the international community for decades. During that time and with the $billions$ they've been allotted they've done exactly zero to build a better life for their people.

But there's millions and millions of Palestinians that have legitimate desires for autonomy and self-determination.

That's true. However, if Palestinian self-determination includes letting an Iranian proxy like Hamas (or Hezbollah in the case of the Lebs) rebuild it's military capability.... what then?

The problem with that is the fact that Hamas is the duly elected government in Gaza and has received support from the UN and the international community for decades. During that time and with the $billions$ they've been allotted they've done exactly zero to build a better life for their people.

Hamas is a dictatorship. They haven't had an election in two decades.

Plus, there are (approximately) 14 million Palestinians. Only 2.2 million live in Gaza. There are more Palestinians living in the West Bank and within the boundaries of Israel than live in Gaza.

Hamas is horrific and deserves nothing. The Palestinian people are indigenous to the region and want the right to autonomy and self-determination as a people. Both of those things are true. Which is one of the many reasons why this is so complicated. It doesn't become uncomplicated simply because of the depredations of Hamas.

That's true. However, if Palestinian self-determination includes letting an Iranian proxy like Hamas (or Hezbollah in the case of the Lebs) rebuild it's military capability.... what then?

Bad things.

I've said many times on these threads, there are no good outcomes. There's no easy way to square Israel's security interests with Palestinian self-determination, given the non-trivial possibility that a Palestinian state ends up being governed by Hamas or another of Iran's "Axis of Resistance" proxies.

Advocates for a two-state solution elide that problem by pointing out - correctly that continual conflict with the Palestinian people is bad for Israel's security because it just keeps creating new terrorist enemies. But that doesn't mean that creating a Palestinian state is better for Israel's security, because a sovereign state risks increasing the capabilities of Israel's existing terrorist enemies.

But the fact that there's no good solution doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist - or that the problem is simple.

Hamas is a dictatorship. They haven't had an election in two decades.

Yes, and the international community has been bankrolling it and actively supporting it.

Hamas is horrific and deserves nothing. The Palestinian people are indigenous to the region and want the right to autonomy and self-determination as a people. Both of those things are true. Which is one of the many reasons why this is so complicated. It doesn't become uncomplicated simply because of the depredations of Hamas.

Of course. However, Hamas needs to be ended as a governing entity *completely* before progress can be made and the Palestinians themselves need to start facing reality: Israel isn't going anywhere and if they want to live in peace and start to generate some prosperity, they're going to have to work for it.

That means ending the terrorism and ending the 'struggle'.

Of course. However, Hamas needs to be ended as a governing entity *completely* before progress can be made and the Palestinians themselves need to start facing reality: Israel isn't going anywhere and if they want to live in peace and start to generate some prosperity, they're going to have to work for it.

That means ending the terrorism and ending the 'struggle'.

Except....how exactly does a random impovershed Palestinian family living in a refugee camp in Syria do anything to end Iranian-funded terrorism in Gaza? Or even a Palestinian family in the West Bank? There isn't a functioning Palestinian state. There hasn't been an election in any Palestinian area since 2009, because leadership won't call one. Which means that ordinary people have no real mechanism for controlling or directing the activities of even the nominal Palestinian government authorities - let alone the non-state actors like the terror groups.

...another of Iran's "Axis of Resistance" proxies

And what if Iran falls? No more proxies, at least from Iran. I'm aware the masses in Iran are not fond of their theocracy, and Iran poked Israel (a bad idea...a lot of their air defenses have since been destroyed). If it falls, and there is no more support for the proxies, will they wither on the vine?

Except....how exactly does a random impovershed Palestinian family living in a refugee camp in Syria do anything to end Iranian-funded terrorism in Gaza? Or even a Palestinian family in the West Bank? There isn't a functioning Palestinian state. There hasn't been an election in any Palestinian area since 2009, because leadership won't call one. Which means that ordinary people have no real mechanism for controlling or directing the activities of even the nominal Palestinian government authorities - let alone the non-state actors like the terror groups.

And why is that?
Where did the literal billions of dollars go and what do they have to show for it?

I'll answer:
-Hundreds of miles of tunnels
-Thousands of rockets
-A school system that Hitler would be proud of in terms of what it teaches

What didn't they build? Literally anything that would help a society grow.

That's on Hamas, on the UN and anyone else enabling this disaster. They're done. Wipe them out and call for new elections after careful discussion.

And what if Iran falls? No more proxies, at least from Iran. I'm aware the masses in Iran are not fond of their theocracy, and Iran poked Israel (a bad idea...a lot of their air defenses have since been destroyed). If it falls, and there is no more support for the proxies, will they wither on the vine?

That really depends on what comes next after Iran "falls." It's hard to guess what that would look like. It's pretty unlikely that the theocratic regime would be replaced by a pluralistic open democratic government that seeks to re-align itself with the Western powers. Normally the most likely successor to a regime falling is that you get a military dictatorship - but the Iranian military is fully controlled by the theocracy, and Israel just killed Soleimani - so that doesn't seem in the cards. But if it were, a military dictatorship is still probably going to remain aligned with Syria and China and Russia, and is going to play the "great game" of regional politics and jostling for power, and will probably still find a policy of containment against Israel and the West to be a viable strategy.

If Iran descends into more of a failed state, then they're probably not pursuing any coherent foreign policy. But failed states are often a great source of resources for regional terror organizations.

And why is that?
Where did the literal billions of dollars go and what do they have to show for it?

It was stolen/wasted by Hamas.

But again, that doesn't resolve the problem. Hamas isn't the Palestinian people. They're the dictatorship that is ruling by force a small portion (less than 20%) of the Palestinian people. The fact that Hamas is terrible, that Hamas has wasted billions of dollars on guns instead of butter, does not invalidate the legitimate demands for autonomy and self-determination of the millions of Palestinians both inside and outside Gaza.

You can't say that because Hamas is evil, the Palestinians don't have a legitimate claim to self-determination. Because the Palestinian people don't control Hamas. That's why conflicts involving non-state actors are so horrifically complex to resolve. Hamas is doing horrific things, but those horrific things don't - and can't - be attributed to the Palestinian people as a whole, because they have no role whatsoever in the governance or decision making of Hamas.

>>But there's millions and millions of Palestinians that have legitimate desires for autonomy and self-determination.<<

That's true. However, if Palestinian self-determination includes letting an Iranian proxy like Hamas (or Hezbollah in the case of the Lebs) rebuild it's military capability.... what then? - sano

----------------

That's true, what then? It is apparent the best available course forward is for the Israelis to continuously degrade Iran's air defenses, military facilities, and it's ability to sell oil, manufacture arms, and fund/equip proxies.

Soon, the big one will have to be dealt with, Iran's nuclear ambitions. This one the Israel's can't handle without a joint operation with the USA. They don't have the necessary bunker busters to reach Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Hopefully we will have leadership in Washington that will recognize the necessity and won't equivocate when the time to deal arrives.

It's been a while, but I saw a program that most Iranians prefer the West. I know it's not as simple as decapitating the regime, but that is probably a necessary condition (or, as we say in science/math, necessary but not sufficient). If Iran seeks "revenge", they invite more airstrikes. A decapitation strike against the theocracy, and the command and control of the military, would render them ineffective on the world stage. Could the Iranian people rise-up to take control of their destiny? No idea. Probably not that simple. Without an organized military, controlling the people would be difficult. But they would need to coalesce around a leader, and I have no idea if there is a pro-democracy leader in/from Iran that would fit the bill.

But poking Israel was pretty dumb.

Hamas is doing horrific things, but those horrific things don't - and can't - be attributed to the Palestinian people as a whole, because they have no role whatsoever in the governance or decision making of Hamas.

History rhyming here...I know of a government that was elected legitimately (just like Hamas), and then quickly evolved into a dictatorship that canceled democracy (like Hamas). The Palestinian people elected Hamas, just as the German people elected the NAZI party. So would you say that the horrific things can't be attributed to the German people as a whole because they had no role in the decision making (after being stupid enough to elect the NAZI party)?

I tend to side with the "you get the government you deserve" if you have a democracy. You vote in autocrats, terrorists, or crazies, that is on you. If they take away your vote, well, you gave them the power to do that. So I can't really excuse the German people (of the 1930s...not the people of the 2020s), nor the Palestinian people. Granted, most of the Palestinians alive today have never voted in an election (and, so, did not vote Hamas).

This does not negate my objection to Israeli "settlements", and their general treatment of the Palestinians.

It was stolen/wasted by Hamas.

With the willing participants of groups like UNRWA, who helped them every step of the way. IIRC the Israelis are throwing them out, and rightfully so.

They're the dictatorship that is ruling by force a small portion (less than 20%) of the Palestinian people. The fact that Hamas is terrible, that Hamas has wasted billions of dollars on guns instead of butter, does not invalidate the legitimate demands for autonomy and self-determination of the millions of Palestinians both inside and outside Gaza.

Sure...but.
The 'but' part is that millions of Palestinians root for and support Hamas. That needs to stop, yesterday.

You can't say that because Hamas is evil, the Palestinians don't have a legitimate claim to self-determination. Because the Palestinian people don't control Hamas. That's why conflicts involving non-state actors are so horrifically complex to resolve. Hamas is doing horrific things, but those horrific things don't - and can't - be attributed to the Palestinian people as a whole, because they have no role whatsoever in the governance or decision making of Hamas.

Unfortunately that's neither here nor there at the moment. There's no universe where a Gaza is going to have any form of self-determination while maintaining even a molecule of Hamas left unchecked. Not going to happen.

The Palestinian people elected Hamas, just as the German people elected the NAZI party. So would you say that the horrific things can't be attributed to the German people as a whole because they had no role in the decision making (after being stupid enough to elect the NAZI party)?

The Palestinian people did not elect Hamas. The small proportion of Palestinian people who lived in Gaza in 2006 elected Hamas. Fewer than 20% of Palestinians.

Unfortunately that's neither here nor there at the moment. There's no universe where a Gaza is going to have any form of self-determination while maintaining even a molecule of Hamas left unchecked. Not going to happen.

A legitimate practical position...but again, not one that solves the problem. There's never going to be a time when there isn't even a "molecule" of Hamas left unchecked. So if that's the test, then the conflict will continue indefinitely.

OK. I think that's a distinction without a difference. All the fighting is in Gaza. If there are Palestinians living in Jerusalem, or London, or wherever, they don't really count for this discussion. Those are a different group(s) of Palestinians. Hamas isn't operating out of the West Bank (why?), and the fighting isn't going on there. Not sure how the West Bank governs itself, but if they didn't vote-in Hamas, and Hamas doesn't have headquarters there, then they aren't included.

Hamas isn't operating out of the West Bank (why?), and the fighting isn't going on there. Not sure how the West Bank governs itself, but if they didn't vote-in Hamas, and Hamas doesn't have headquarters there, then they aren't included. - 1pg

-----------------

That is an interesting question. Given the apparent similarity of their starting positions, how did the West Bank avoid a Gaza Strip outcome?

If there are Palestinians living in Jerusalem, or London, or wherever, they don't really count for this discussion. Those are a different group(s) of Palestinians. Hamas isn't operating out of the West Bank (why?), and the fighting isn't going on there. Not sure how the West Bank governs itself, but if they didn't vote-in Hamas, and Hamas doesn't have headquarters there, then they aren't included.

They do count. You have people that have spent their entire lives living in a refugee camp in Syria. They have a legitimate interest in the creation of a Palestinian state, and the autonomy and self-determination of their people. They have a stake in this.

Again, this is why this is so complicated.

A legitimate practical position...but again, not one that solves the problem. There's never going to be a time when there isn't even a "molecule" of Hamas left unchecked. So if that's the test, then the conflict will continue indefinitely.

Depends. How much has Israel thought about winning the peace?
One could have made the argument that Germany and Japan in 1945 were broken societies full of people willing to support mass murder and genocide and that there were plenty of Nazi/Imperial Japan molecules floating around both societies.

Depends. How much has Israel thought about winning the peace?
One could have made the argument that Germany and Japan in 1945 were broken societies full of people willing to support mass murder and genocide and that there were plenty of Nazi/Imperial Japan molecules floating around both societies.

And there were lots of those 'molecules.' In Germany, the occupying powers spent four years trying to deNazify the country - the state was dissolved, the country was run by foreign governments, and they instituted courts to try root out all the folks that had been involved with Nazism to any material degree. Until they got distracted by the Cold War, anyway - so they didn't get every 'molecule.' Not sure Israel has the same capability in Gaza as the Allies in postwar Germany, or the same Marshall Plan willingness to create a rebuilt state that the Gazans get to run for themselves when it's all done.

I agree it is complicated. But, per your previous post, the folks in the refugee camps didn't vote Hamas. So we aren't really talking about them. We're talking about the ones in Gaza that voted in Hamas, and then found their vote taken away for the next ~20 years (and counting). They voted Hamas, and so they have to take the responsibility for what it does (at least somewhat). Just as the Germans voted NAZI, and then were responsible for the outcome (which was not only the suffering of millions of others, but also themselves as their cities were reduced to rubble, and their male population plummeted to the point that they were recruiting senior citizens and children).

I have a lot more compassion for people who suffer some sort of coup, than people who voted-in their oppressors (like Germany, Gaza, even the Philippines under Duterte, and potentially us next week). The latter are just stupid.

Hypothetically, if Israel does sufficient damage to Hamas that they lose their grip on power, could Gaza resume a democracy? Could the refugees return to Gaza? Or would Gaza slide right back into voting Hamas, and then a Hamas dictatorship?

Not sure Israel has the same capability in Gaza as the Allies in postwar Germany, or the same Marshall Plan willingness to create a rebuilt state that the Gazans get to run for themselves when it's all done.

Nor the same inclination. I've seen reporters on the ground talking to Palestinians, and they are routinely pelted with debris just because they are Palestinian (e.g. I don't know the physical location, but they had to put a net up over a walkway because Israeli settlers would throw bottles and trash down onto the Palestinians using the walkway). However, if they could take apart Hamas sufficiently that another government could rise in its place, and then do a Marshall Plan-esque sort of thing, that might go a long way to resolving the problem.

Though they would need to destroy the ability of other nations to use Hamas (or anyone else) as proxies, which means blasting Iran's military and armaments manufacturing. And maybe decapitating the theocracy.

This matches pretty close my thinking on W Bank Palestinians vs Gaza. I talked with some Pal pet shop owners in SoCal, they thought they paid a heavy price and got nowhere.


SNIP Conclusion

The best explanation for the relative passivity of most West Bank Palestinians is the same one offered early in the war—namely, the traumatic memory of the second intifada, when they paid a huge price but failed to secure significant political achievements after four years of violence. In this respect, Israel’s recent conduct in the West Bank echoes the difficult period two decades ago when it responded to mass violence with large-scale arrests, resulting in heavy Palestinian casualties.

One could also argue that the modern influences of the past twenty years—consumer culture, social media, single-family housing, mass use of technology—have led many West Bankers to focus more on personal advancement than the collective ideologies and commitments that fuel mass uprisings. For those who lived through the second intifada, such influences could make them even more likely to prefer a distasteful status quo over their past experience of wider war, chaos, and siege.

Of course, even if this preference is prevalent in the West Bank, it is hardly set in stone, nor does it necessarily apply to younger Palestinians, who are even more prone to identifying with Hamas and other violent groups. Their aversion to the Palestinian Authority is growing, with numerous polls and analyses indicating that many locals view institutions like the PA as an unnecessary evil and an impediment to advancing the Palestinian national movement and achieving freedom from occupation.

Despite legitimate criticism of the PA’s rhetoric and conduct, however, Israelis have a crucial interest in preventing its collapse, in part so that it can continue to serve as a check on terrorists and a barrier against Hamas’s rise in the West Bank. In this sense, those who argue that there is little difference between the PA and Hamas will only ease the latter’s path to taking control of the Palestinian national movement.

Neomi Neumann is a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute and former head of the research unit at the Israel Security Agency SNIP

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysi...

But, per your previous post, the folks in the refugee camps didn't vote Hamas. So we aren't really talking about them.

We are, though. Dope's suggestion is that Israel should not contemplate the creation of a Palestinian state until Hamas is completely eradicated from Gaza. The folks in the refugee camps didn't vote Hamas - but their desire for autonomy and self-determination will continue to be completely thwarted if progress towards a Palestinian state is put on hold.

Again, that's why it's so complicated. It's understandable that Israel regards their security interests as being undermined if a Palestinian state is created while Hamas is still active; but it's also unjust to the millions of Palestinians who had no direct role in Hamas coming to power to suffer the consequences of Hamas' evil.

If you have have more sympathy for the people who suffered a coup rather than voting in their oppressor, it seems reasonable to have even more sympathy for the people who were hundreds of miles away from any of it, but suffer the consequences.

Hypothetically, if Israel does sufficient damage to Hamas that they lose their grip on power, could Gaza resume a democracy? Could the refugees return to Gaza? Or would Gaza slide right back into voting Hamas, and then a Hamas dictatorship?

Who knows? Democracies are hard to maintain when created anew. Without a shared consensus that rival factions within a society can gain or lose power as a result of the vote - and a shared sense of security that getting voted out of power will not come with life-threatening reprisals for actions taken in power - then it's hard to get the ball rolling of parties coming in and out of power.

Gaza probably can't handle any more population, especially now. You'd have to have a Palestinian state that encompassed both the West Bank and Gaza, which combined might be able to handle returning refugees if there were a lot of investment in both - and a lot of desettlement.

But there's no guarantee that the population wouldn't vote Hamas into power. If a Palestinian state were created as a direct consequence of 10/7, I actually think it's very likely that they would. If a Palestinian country is born from the ashes of 10/7, then Hamas will be their Founding Fathers. Which is why, of course, Israel has had very little interest in pursuing a Pal state as part of the "day after." They're worried about the day after the day after.

"There's no "Both sides" here." - Dope

Sure there is. Just because you cannot understand the difference between Palestinians and Hamas doesn't make them the same. It just means it is another patented Dope failure to understand the obvious.

Before you get your panties in a bunch and whine about incivility, prove me wrong. Demonstrate that you understand the differences between Palestinians and Hamas.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.